Flash Presentation Problem on My GW 700x

My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a fairly
good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem playing web videos.
However, when I go to this link to play a Flash presentation...

http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green

....the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this Firefox 2.0
webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.

What is the likely problem here?

Thanks!
Scott

In news:,
Scott typed on Mon, 04 May 2009 23:59:08 -0500:
> My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
> fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem playing
> web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a Flash
> presentation...
>
> http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
>
> ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this Firefox
> 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
>
> What is the likely problem here?
>
> Thanks!
> Scott

Hi Scott! That site won't even let me in. As it wants me to upgrade my
IE6 (it is really Maxthon) browser first.

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/468...0505063209.gif

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2

Scott wrote:
> My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a fairly
> good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem playing web videos.
> However, when I go to this link to play a Flash presentation...
>
> http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
>
> ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this Firefox 2.0
> webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
>
> What is the likely problem here?
>
> Thanks!
> Scott

Scott,

You yourself have hinted at the cause of the problem. The system does
not have enough horsepower between graphics and CPU to push all the bits
needed onto the screen. Audio playback requires very little processing
power compared to all those bits being rapidly shoveled out onto the
screen by Flash.

Most likely an upgrade to a newer graphics card with more on-board
memory would be cost-effective. You might also look at the amount of
memory in the system itself. A CPU upgrade would not do all that much
to increase the power of the system. I'll guess that the CPU is around
1.8 to 2.0 GHz. I'd have to check the specs on the motherboard, but it
may be limited to Socket 478 CPUs with 400MHz front-side bus. If so,
then the fastest would either be 2.4GHz Pentium 4 (scarce and expensive)
or a 2.8Ghz Celeron (cheap, but smaller cache memory than a P4). These
would not provide enough bang for the buck to be worth the time and
effort to install... Ben Myers

In news:gtpkdp$132$,
Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 11:02:06 -0400:
> Scott wrote:
>> My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
>> fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem
>> playing web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a Flash
>> presentation... http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
>>
>> ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this Firefox
>> 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
>>
>> What is the likely problem here?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Scott
>
> Scott,
>
> You yourself have hinted at the cause of the problem. The system does
> not have enough horsepower between graphics and CPU to push all the
> bits needed onto the screen. Audio playback requires very little
> processing power compared to all those bits being rapidly shoveled
> out onto the screen by Flash.
>
> Most likely an upgrade to a newer graphics card with more on-board
> memory would be cost-effective. You might also look at the amount of
> memory in the system itself. A CPU upgrade would not do all that much
> to increase the power of the system. I'll guess that the CPU is
> around 1.8 to 2.0 GHz. I'd have to check the specs on the
> motherboard, but
> it may be limited to Socket 478 CPUs with 400MHz front-side bus. If
> so, then the fastest would either be 2.4GHz Pentium 4 (scarce and
> expensive) or a 2.8Ghz Celeron (cheap, but smaller cache memory than
> a P4). These would not provide enough bang for the buck to be worth
> the time and effort to install... Ben Myers

Hi Scott, well I disagree with Ben. I use Celerons all of the time with
very cheap video cards (integrated with shared memory) and a 600MHz
Celeron or faster should play videos just fine. This netbook for example
has a 900Mhz Celeron under clocked to 633MHz and it plays videos just
fine. I can clock it up if I need too, but I rarely need too.

During a recent test to help someone on another newsgroup. I found the
worst part of playing a video through a browser is that Adobe Flash
Player is a huge CPU hog! For example, playing a 700kbps 640x400 video
on this netbook eats up about 90% of the CPU with Adobe Flash Player.
Although using any other player with the codec installed (like WMP or
Media Player Classic) the CPU drops down to 20% with the same video.

I also tried different browsers like IE6 and Firefox 3 and the results
were the same with Adobe Flash Player plug in. So the browser doesn't
change this at all. And everything points to Adobe Flash Player as being
a gross CPU hog. Nonetheless, your computer still should play the video
even with Adobe Flash Player without any hardware upgrades. If my
Toshiba 2595XDVD with a 400MHz Celeron ('99 era) with 2.5MB of video RAM
and with 192MB of RAM can, so can yours. Although I am sure I have an
older Adobe Flash Player version installed on it. <grin>

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2

BillW50 wrote:
> In news:gtpkdp$132$,
> Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 11:02:06 -0400:
>> Scott wrote:
>>> My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
>>> fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem
>>> playing web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a Flash
>>> presentation... http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
>>>
>>> ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this Firefox
>>> 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
>>>
>>> What is the likely problem here?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Scott
>> Scott,
>>
>> You yourself have hinted at the cause of the problem. The system does
>> not have enough horsepower between graphics and CPU to push all the
>> bits needed onto the screen. Audio playback requires very little
>> processing power compared to all those bits being rapidly shoveled
>> out onto the screen by Flash.
>>
>> Most likely an upgrade to a newer graphics card with more on-board
>> memory would be cost-effective. You might also look at the amount of
>> memory in the system itself. A CPU upgrade would not do all that much
>> to increase the power of the system. I'll guess that the CPU is
>> around 1.8 to 2.0 GHz. I'd have to check the specs on the
>> motherboard, but
>> it may be limited to Socket 478 CPUs with 400MHz front-side bus. If
>> so, then the fastest would either be 2.4GHz Pentium 4 (scarce and
>> expensive) or a 2.8Ghz Celeron (cheap, but smaller cache memory than
>> a P4). These would not provide enough bang for the buck to be worth
>> the time and effort to install... Ben Myers
>
> Hi Scott, well I disagree with Ben. I use Celerons all of the time with
> very cheap video cards (integrated with shared memory) and a 600MHz
> Celeron or faster should play videos just fine. This netbook for example
> has a 900Mhz Celeron under clocked to 633MHz and it plays videos just
> fine. I can clock it up if I need too, but I rarely need too.
>
> During a recent test to help someone on another newsgroup. I found the
> worst part of playing a video through a browser is that Adobe Flash
> Player is a huge CPU hog! For example, playing a 700kbps 640x400 video
> on this netbook eats up about 90% of the CPU with Adobe Flash Player.
> Although using any other player with the codec installed (like WMP or
> Media Player Classic) the CPU drops down to 20% with the same video.
>
> I also tried different browsers like IE6 and Firefox 3 and the results
> were the same with Adobe Flash Player plug in. So the browser doesn't
> change this at all. And everything points to Adobe Flash Player as being
> a gross CPU hog. Nonetheless, your computer still should play the video
> even with Adobe Flash Player without any hardware upgrades. If my
> Toshiba 2595XDVD with a 400MHz Celeron ('99 era) with 2.5MB of video RAM
> and with 192MB of RAM can, so can yours. Although I am sure I have an
> older Adobe Flash Player version installed on it. <grin>
>

BillW50, Give it a rest. I NEVER made any value judgement about Celeron
CPUs. Just the facts, m'am. The actual and accurate facts, even.
"cheap, but smaller cache memory than a P4." How can a rational being
possibly disagree with the facts?

Fact is that a jump from the presumed 1.8GHz P4 CPU to a 2.8GHz Celeron
(if one can be found inexpensively) will provide SOME improvement. The
faster Celeron clock speed is slightly cancelled out by its smaller
cache. How much improvement? I dunno. Some. Worth it? Maybe. Will
the motherboard BIOS support a 2.8GHz Celeron? Maybe, but pretty likely.

I suppose if the OP has time on his hands and a few bucks to spend, it
is worth upgrading the 700x only with a pretty modest investment. But
the result could be underwhelming. Or phenomenal.

.... Ben Myers

In news:,
Scott typed on Mon, 04 May 2009 23:59:08 -0500:
> My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
> fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem playing
> web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a Flash
> presentation...
>
> http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
>
> ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this Firefox
> 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
>
> What is the likely problem here?
>
> Thanks!
> Scott

Hi Scott! Well I tried Firefox 3 Portable on my netbook and the website
pops up ok. But the video won't download. I tried it on my Gateway
MX6124 1.5GHz ('06 era) and it plays fine. Using Firefox it was pushing
50% of the CPU time. The file can be found in your temp folder. You
probably need the free Unlocker to make a copy of it if you want to play
it outside of the browser (plays fine on the Gateway and this netbook).
Here is the info about the video. Maybe it will help.

General
Complete name : D:\Videos\The Cosmetic Conspiracy.flv
Format : Flash Video
File size : 79.0 MiB
Duration : 17mn 43s
Overall bit rate : 623 Kbps

Video
Format : VP6
Duration : 17mn 43s
Bit rate : 500 Kbps
Width : 720 pixels
Height : 405 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16/9
Frame rate : 23.976 fps
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.072

Audio
Format : MPEG Audio
Format version : Version 1
Format profile : Layer 3
Duration : 17mn 43s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 80.0 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Sampling rate : 44.1 KHz
Resolution : 16 bits

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2

In news:gtq2s5$8c0$,
Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 15:08:51 -0400:
> BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:gtpkdp$132$,
>> Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 11:02:06 -0400:
>>> Scott wrote:
>>>> My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
>>>> fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem
>>>> playing web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a Flash
>>>> presentation... http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
>>>>
>>>> ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this
>>>> Firefox 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
>>>>
>>>> What is the likely problem here?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Scott
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>> You yourself have hinted at the cause of the problem. The system
>>> does not have enough horsepower between graphics and CPU to push
>>> all the bits needed onto the screen. Audio playback requires very
>>> little processing power compared to all those bits being rapidly
>>> shoveled out onto the screen by Flash.
>>>
>>> Most likely an upgrade to a newer graphics card with more on-board
>>> memory would be cost-effective. You might also look at the amount
>>> of memory in the system itself. A CPU upgrade would not do all
>>> that much to increase the power of the system. I'll guess that the
>>> CPU is around 1.8 to 2.0 GHz. I'd have to check the specs on the
>>> motherboard, but
>>> it may be limited to Socket 478 CPUs with 400MHz front-side bus. If
>>> so, then the fastest would either be 2.4GHz Pentium 4 (scarce and
>>> expensive) or a 2.8Ghz Celeron (cheap, but smaller cache memory than
>>> a P4). These would not provide enough bang for the buck to be worth
>>> the time and effort to install... Ben Myers
>>
>> Hi Scott, well I disagree with Ben. I use Celerons all of the time
>> with very cheap video cards (integrated with shared memory) and a
>> 600MHz Celeron or faster should play videos just fine. This netbook
>> for example has a 900Mhz Celeron under clocked to 633MHz and it
>> plays videos just fine. I can clock it up if I need too, but I
>> rarely need too. During a recent test to help someone on another
>> newsgroup. I found
>> the worst part of playing a video through a browser is that Adobe
>> Flash Player is a huge CPU hog! For example, playing a 700kbps
>> 640x400 video on this netbook eats up about 90% of the CPU with
>> Adobe Flash Player. Although using any other player with the codec
>> installed (like WMP or Media Player Classic) the CPU drops down to
>> 20% with the same video. I also tried different browsers like IE6 and
>> Firefox 3 and the
>> results were the same with Adobe Flash Player plug in. So the
>> browser doesn't change this at all. And everything points to Adobe
>> Flash Player as being a gross CPU hog. Nonetheless, your computer
>> still should play the video even with Adobe Flash Player without any
>> hardware upgrades. If my Toshiba 2595XDVD with a 400MHz Celeron ('99
>> era) with 2.5MB of video RAM and with 192MB of RAM can, so can
>> yours. Although I am sure I have an older Adobe Flash Player version
>> installed on it. <grin>
>
> BillW50, Give it a rest. I NEVER made any value judgement about
> Celeron CPUs. Just the facts, m'am. The actual and accurate facts,
> even. "cheap, but smaller cache memory than a P4." How can a
> rational being possibly disagree with the facts?
>
> Fact is that a jump from the presumed 1.8GHz P4 CPU to a 2.8GHz
> Celeron (if one can be found inexpensively) will provide SOME
> improvement. The faster Celeron clock speed is slightly cancelled
> out by its smaller cache. How much improvement? I dunno. Some.
> Worth it? Maybe. Will the motherboard BIOS support a 2.8GHz
> Celeron? Maybe, but pretty likely.
> I suppose if the OP has time on his hands and a few bucks to spend, it
> is worth upgrading the 700x only with a pretty modest investment. But
> the result could be underwhelming. Or phenomenal.
>
> ... Ben Myers

Well I must say you are indeed a character Ben. <grin> But I stand by my
statement that it isn't Scott's hardware, but something else. I just
tried my Celeron 1.5GHz under Firefox 3 and it played fine at 50% CPU
use.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2

BillW50 wrote:
> In news:gtq2s5$8c0$,
> Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 15:08:51 -0400:
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>> In news:gtpkdp$132$,
>>> Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 11:02:06 -0400:
>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>> My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
>>>>> fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem
>>>>> playing web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a Flash
>>>>> presentation... http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
>>>>>
>>>>> ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this
>>>>> Firefox 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the likely problem here?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Scott
>>>> Scott,
>>>>
>>>> You yourself have hinted at the cause of the problem. The system
>>>> does not have enough horsepower between graphics and CPU to push
>>>> all the bits needed onto the screen. Audio playback requires very
>>>> little processing power compared to all those bits being rapidly
>>>> shoveled out onto the screen by Flash.
>>>>
>>>> Most likely an upgrade to a newer graphics card with more on-board
>>>> memory would be cost-effective. You might also look at the amount
>>>> of memory in the system itself. A CPU upgrade would not do all
>>>> that much to increase the power of the system. I'll guess that the
>>>> CPU is around 1.8 to 2.0 GHz. I'd have to check the specs on the
>>>> motherboard, but
>>>> it may be limited to Socket 478 CPUs with 400MHz front-side bus. If
>>>> so, then the fastest would either be 2.4GHz Pentium 4 (scarce and
>>>> expensive) or a 2.8Ghz Celeron (cheap, but smaller cache memory than
>>>> a P4). These would not provide enough bang for the buck to be worth
>>>> the time and effort to install... Ben Myers
>>> Hi Scott, well I disagree with Ben. I use Celerons all of the time
>>> with very cheap video cards (integrated with shared memory) and a
>>> 600MHz Celeron or faster should play videos just fine. This netbook
>>> for example has a 900Mhz Celeron under clocked to 633MHz and it
>>> plays videos just fine. I can clock it up if I need too, but I
>>> rarely need too. During a recent test to help someone on another
>>> newsgroup. I found
>>> the worst part of playing a video through a browser is that Adobe
>>> Flash Player is a huge CPU hog! For example, playing a 700kbps
>>> 640x400 video on this netbook eats up about 90% of the CPU with
>>> Adobe Flash Player. Although using any other player with the codec
>>> installed (like WMP or Media Player Classic) the CPU drops down to
>>> 20% with the same video. I also tried different browsers like IE6 and
>>> Firefox 3 and the
>>> results were the same with Adobe Flash Player plug in. So the
>>> browser doesn't change this at all. And everything points to Adobe
>>> Flash Player as being a gross CPU hog. Nonetheless, your computer
>>> still should play the video even with Adobe Flash Player without any
>>> hardware upgrades. If my Toshiba 2595XDVD with a 400MHz Celeron ('99
>>> era) with 2.5MB of video RAM and with 192MB of RAM can, so can
>>> yours. Although I am sure I have an older Adobe Flash Player version
>>> installed on it. <grin>
>> BillW50, Give it a rest. I NEVER made any value judgement about
>> Celeron CPUs. Just the facts, m'am. The actual and accurate facts,
>> even. "cheap, but smaller cache memory than a P4." How can a
>> rational being possibly disagree with the facts?
>>
>> Fact is that a jump from the presumed 1.8GHz P4 CPU to a 2.8GHz
>> Celeron (if one can be found inexpensively) will provide SOME
>> improvement. The faster Celeron clock speed is slightly cancelled
>> out by its smaller cache. How much improvement? I dunno. Some.
>> Worth it? Maybe. Will the motherboard BIOS support a 2.8GHz
>> Celeron? Maybe, but pretty likely.
>> I suppose if the OP has time on his hands and a few bucks to spend, it
>> is worth upgrading the 700x only with a pretty modest investment. But
>> the result could be underwhelming. Or phenomenal.
>>
>> ... Ben Myers
>
> Well I must say you are indeed a character Ben. <grin> But I stand by my
> statement that it isn't Scott's hardware, but something else. I just
> tried my Celeron 1.5GHz under Firefox 3 and it played fine at 50% CPU
> use.
>

"something else", which is? I react to your statements because they are
so damned vague. Same as your original statement that you disagreed
with me. Did you bother to say why? No. For a self-proclaimed member
of Mensa or whatever, you leave behind statements that exhibit a lack of
critical thinking... Ben

In news:gtqtin$aj7$,
Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 22:44:37 -0400:
> BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:gtq2s5$8c0$,
>> Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 15:08:51 -0400:
>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>> In news:gtpkdp$132$,
>>>> Ben Myers typed on Tue, 05 May 2009 11:02:06 -0400:
>>>>> Scott wrote:
>>>>>> My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
>>>>>> fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem
>>>>>> playing web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a
>>>>>> Flash presentation... http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this
>>>>>> Firefox 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the likely problem here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>> Scott,
>>>>>
>>>>> You yourself have hinted at the cause of the problem. The system
>>>>> does not have enough horsepower between graphics and CPU to push
>>>>> all the bits needed onto the screen. Audio playback requires very
>>>>> little processing power compared to all those bits being rapidly
>>>>> shoveled out onto the screen by Flash.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most likely an upgrade to a newer graphics card with more on-board
>>>>> memory would be cost-effective. You might also look at the amount
>>>>> of memory in the system itself. A CPU upgrade would not do all
>>>>> that much to increase the power of the system. I'll guess that
>>>>> the CPU is around 1.8 to 2.0 GHz. I'd have to check the specs on
>>>>> the motherboard, but
>>>>> it may be limited to Socket 478 CPUs with 400MHz front-side bus.
>>>>> If so, then the fastest would either be 2.4GHz Pentium 4 (scarce
>>>>> and expensive) or a 2.8Ghz Celeron (cheap, but smaller cache
>>>>> memory than a P4). These would not provide enough bang for the
>>>>> buck to be worth the time and effort to install... Ben Myers
>>>> Hi Scott, well I disagree with Ben. I use Celerons all of the time
>>>> with very cheap video cards (integrated with shared memory) and a
>>>> 600MHz Celeron or faster should play videos just fine. This netbook
>>>> for example has a 900Mhz Celeron under clocked to 633MHz and it
>>>> plays videos just fine. I can clock it up if I need too, but I
>>>> rarely need too. During a recent test to help someone on another
>>>> newsgroup. I found
>>>> the worst part of playing a video through a browser is that Adobe
>>>> Flash Player is a huge CPU hog! For example, playing a 700kbps
>>>> 640x400 video on this netbook eats up about 90% of the CPU with
>>>> Adobe Flash Player. Although using any other player with the codec
>>>> installed (like WMP or Media Player Classic) the CPU drops down to
>>>> 20% with the same video. I also tried different browsers like IE6
>>>> and Firefox 3 and the
>>>> results were the same with Adobe Flash Player plug in. So the
>>>> browser doesn't change this at all. And everything points to Adobe
>>>> Flash Player as being a gross CPU hog. Nonetheless, your computer
>>>> still should play the video even with Adobe Flash Player without
>>>> any hardware upgrades. If my Toshiba 2595XDVD with a 400MHz
>>>> Celeron ('99 era) with 2.5MB of video RAM and with 192MB of RAM
>>>> can, so can yours. Although I am sure I have an older Adobe Flash
>>>> Player version installed on it. <grin>
>>> BillW50, Give it a rest. I NEVER made any value judgement about
>>> Celeron CPUs. Just the facts, m'am. The actual and accurate facts,
>>> even. "cheap, but smaller cache memory than a P4." How can a
>>> rational being possibly disagree with the facts?
>>>
>>> Fact is that a jump from the presumed 1.8GHz P4 CPU to a 2.8GHz
>>> Celeron (if one can be found inexpensively) will provide SOME
>>> improvement. The faster Celeron clock speed is slightly cancelled
>>> out by its smaller cache. How much improvement? I dunno. Some.
>>> Worth it? Maybe. Will the motherboard BIOS support a 2.8GHz
>>> Celeron? Maybe, but pretty likely.
>>> I suppose if the OP has time on his hands and a few bucks to spend,
>>> it is worth upgrading the 700x only with a pretty modest
>>> investment. But the result could be underwhelming. Or phenomenal.
>>>
>>> ... Ben Myers
>>
>> Well I must say you are indeed a character Ben. <grin> But I stand
>> by my statement that it isn't Scott's hardware, but something else.
>> I just tried my Celeron 1.5GHz under Firefox 3 and it played fine at
>> 50% CPU use.
>>
>
> "something else", which is? I react to your statements because they
> are so damned vague. Same as your original statement that you
> disagreed with me. Did you bother to say why? No. For a
> self-proclaimed member of Mensa or whatever, you leave behind
> statements that exhibit a lack of critical thinking... Ben

Self-proclaimed member of Mensa? Vague? Critical thinking? Nonsense!
There is nothing wrong with Scott's 2.8-GHz Pentium 4 processor. It
clearly has enough horsepower to play this video. This something else? I
already alluded too it. Adobe Flash Player 10 for one eats up 2½ times
more processing power than other players for one.

Since it can't be Scott's hardware lacking power enough to play the
video. And I already proved it by playing the file on this netbook,
which has far less CPU power and video capabilities than Scott's
computer. It played using 50% of the CPU power (Celeron 900MHz running
at 633MHz).

So if it isn't the hardware being underpowered, what can it be? Well
think Ben! Either the CPU is too busy doing something else from some
background task (software problem). Or Scott's Internet bandwidth can't
keep up. Which seems very unlikely from everything else I have heard so
far. I can't think of anything else it could be.

You on the other hand, keep insisting that Scott's hardware isn't fast
enough to handle this video. That is pure nonsense. As my old Toshiba
2595XDVD ('99) Celeron 400MHz should be able to just barely be able to
play this video. And it only has 2.5MB of video RAM. This is the trip
point IMHO of not having or having enough power to play it.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2

BillW50 wrote:
>
> In news:,
> Scott typed on Mon, 04 May 2009 23:59:08 -0500:
> > My 2GHz 7-year old Gateway 700x desktop running Win XP Pro and a
> > fairly good Nvidia GeoForce 2 MX400 video card has no problem playing
> > web videos. However, when I go to this link to play a Flash
> > presentation...
> >
> > http://www.thecosmeticconspiracy.com/green
> >
> > ...the sound and video are very choppy. When I minimize this Firefox
> > 2.0 webpage to the taskbar, the sound is very smooth.
> >
> > What is the likely problem here?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Scott
>
> Hi Scott! Well I tried Firefox 3 Portable on my netbook and the website
> pops up ok. But the video won't download. I tried it on my Gateway
> MX6124 1.5GHz ('06 era) and it plays fine. Using Firefox it was pushing
> 50% of the CPU time. The file can be found in your temp folder. You
> probably need the free Unlocker to make a copy of it if you want to play
> it outside of the browser (plays fine on the Gateway and this netbook).
> Here is the info about the video. Maybe it will help.
>
> General
> Complete name : D:\Videos\The Cosmetic Conspiracy.flv
> Format : Flash Video
> File size : 79.0 MiB
> Duration : 17mn 43s
> Overall bit rate : 623 Kbps
>
> Video
> Format : VP6
> Duration : 17mn 43s
> Bit rate : 500 Kbps
> Width : 720 pixels
> Height : 405 pixels
> Display aspect ratio : 16/9
> Frame rate : 23.976 fps
> Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.072
>
> Audio
> Format : MPEG Audio
> Format version : Version 1
> Format profile : Layer 3
> Duration : 17mn 43s
> Bit rate mode : Constant
> Bit rate : 80.0 Kbps
> Channel(s) : 2 channels
> Sampling rate : 44.1 KHz
> Resolution : 16 bits
>
> --
> Bill
> Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
> Windows XP SP2


For whatever reason, the flash presentation plays okay no...using Firefox 2.0
When it's playing, it's using 50-50% of the CPU time.

There must have been something running in the background for awhile, but it's no
longer a problem.

Thanks for your help!

Scott